Opportunity to cross examine witnesses not given to petitioner. Rule of alternate remedy not a bar for High Court to exercise Writ jurisdiction.
Pallavi Naresh Shah Vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court) No reply was filed by the assessee due to technical glitch on portal. order passed subsequently, under Section 147 r/w section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 set aside. Matter remanded back. The Petitioner challenged the order of assessment passed under section 147 read […]
Impugned show cause notices are void and bad-in-law in view of non-adjudication after a lapse of nearly 10 years from the date of issuance of first show cause notice.
HC held that genuine hardship faced by tax consultant which led to omission of timely filing of petitioner’s return sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b)
Bombay High Court held that order passed without taking into account the reply and document produced by the petitioner to the show cause notice is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Sai Kripa Confectioneries Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Provisional attachment of bank account along with credit ledger account was unblocked on the admission of the Commissioner that there was an error in judgement. Alert made as risky exporter was also removed. The Petitioner challenged the attachment of bank accounts, blocking of credit ledger […]
Rosy Blue India Private Limited vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Petitioner challenged non-sanction of refund of service tax paid on export of services. The Show Cause Notice proposing denial of refund was challenged. However, during the pendency, refund of principal was granted. The interest on delayed refund from 2010-2011 till 2022 was […]
Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition as an alternate remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner which needs to be filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as per the provisions of Section 246 of the Income Tax Act.
Bombay High Court held that expenditure towards development of a software which never came into existence is revenue in nature as it doesn’t give rise to any new asset.
ACNielsen Research Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Bombay High Court) The petitioner had an appeal pending before the Hon’ble CESTAT. The petitioner has deposited a sum for the said appeal. The petitioner availed benefit of SVLDR Scheme. It filed SVLDRS Form 1. Form 3 was issued. It paid the directed sum in time. […]
